Re: [PATCH] scripts: checkpatch: Check block comments start with /* empty line outside net

[Alex Ghiti <alex@ghiti.fr>]

On 3/6/19 7:12 AM, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> Le 3/6/19 à 12:08 AM, Joe Perches a écrit :
>> On Tue, 2019-03-05 at 13:02 -0500, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>>> This patch ensures that apart from net code, block comments start 
>>> with an
>>> empty /* line.
>> I'm not sure it's useful to try to eliminate these types
>> of lines as there are ~20K of them in the kernel
>>
>> $ git grep -P "^\/\*\s*\S" | \
>>    grep -v "\*/\s*$" | \
>>    grep -vP "^(drivers/net|net/)" | \
>>    grep -vP "\/\*\**$" | \
>>    wc -l
>> 19437
>
>
> This is part of the coding style, some people rely on checkpatch for 
> this matter,
> so I think we should at least warn user, that would avoid patch bouncing.
>
>
>>
>> Also, perhaps the code would be simpler using something like:
>> ---
>>   scripts/checkpatch.pl | 11 +++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/scripts/checkpatch.pl b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> index d0001fd1112d..c62dbd440c50 100755
>> --- a/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> +++ b/scripts/checkpatch.pl
>> @@ -3262,6 +3262,17 @@ sub process {
>>                    "networking block comments don't use an empty /* 
>> line, use /* Comment...\n" . $hereprev);
>>           }
>>   +# Block comments use an initial blank /* unless self contained 
>> single line
>> +# or a continuous header line like /**********************
>> +# This also allows for introductory kernel-doc /** lines
>> +        if ($realfile !~ m@(?:drivers/net|net/)@ &&
>> +            $rawline =~ m@^\+\s*/\*(?:\s*\*++)?\s*\S@ &&
>> +            $rawline !~ m@\*/\s*$@ &&
>> +            $realline > 2) {
>> +            WARN("BLOCK_COMMENT_STYLE",
>> +                 "Block comments start with only /* on an otherwise 
>> blank line\n" . $herecurr);
>> +        }
>> +
>>   # Block comments use * on subsequent lines
>>           if ($prevline =~ /$;[ \t]*$/ && #ends in comment
>>               $prevrawline =~ /^\+.*?\/\*/ && #starting /*
>>
>>
> Your version handles more cases, but why is it simpler ? Anyway, 
> that's ok for me
> if you prefer your version.
>
> Thanks for your comments,
>
> Alex
>
>

Hi Joe,

Can I do something more regarding this patch ?

Thanks,

Alex